Accountability, Transparency, & Brave Sir Robin

Over the weekend, we ran a quick poll on Twitter (View Poll).

Do you trust the SFA to administer football in the interests of the sport?

Around 1500 took part and the percentage shares were as follows

No: 95%
Yes: 3%
Don’t Know: 2%

Not exactly scientific, nor do we make any claim that the sample demographic is representative (although the sample size is substantial).

However by any measure the overwhelming disapproval of the SFA, or the clubs that form the major part of that body, is something that cannot simply be tossed aside.

Even if the 95% (nearly 2% of the match attending public) are mistaken or deluded, it is a very badly managed industry that would ignore the perception of mistrust held by its customers.

Of course the SFA and the media will ignore the results of this poll. It doesn’t speak to the shiny-brochure, all’s-well narrative – even if the facts prove the narrative to be false.

The authorities are under siege at the moment; the government are closing in on the strict liability issue, the fans voicing disapproval and lack of trust in how the game is run, and a major member club approaches a potential financial meltdown. On top of that, there are excruciatingly bad choices made on match scheduling, venues for neutral showpiece games, and the self-acquittal process of the cup final inquiry. Not to mention that those incompetents who run the game have presided over and actively helped bring about the (arguably)  most bitter and widest polarisation of fans in the history of the game.

Even if the 95% (nearly 2% of the match attending public) are mistaken or deluded, it is a very badly managed industry that would ignore the perception of mistrust held by its customers.

Cue Stewart Regan and club chairmen across the country burying their heads even deeper in the sand, because all is well is it not?

It is a not unreasonable expectation that governing bodies should find solutions to problems in their field of expertise. The SFA are not by any stretch of the imagination part of any solution process – in fact they are a major part of the problem itself.

Football is a public-facing industry. In Scotland, because of poor TV revenues negotiated ineffectually by, wait for it, the governing bodies, the sport relies almost 100% on attendances – on fans staying loyal to the sport. Those fans (you would think) should be cultivated, engaged with, and paid heed to.

Staggeringly though, the SFA’s civil service, in the shape of their full time executives and PR machinery have done the opposite. Instead of engaging with the customer base, they have actively waged war against them.

Regan has breathed into life the wonderful fiction of Monty Python’s Brave Sir Robin.

The originally welcome transparency of the Chief Executive’s move to communicate via Twitter became increasingly opaque in the face of tough questions. Nowadays sightings only appear sporadically; and only if you are quick enough to spot him popping his head out the bunker to take a cheap shot at a critic, or childishly ejaculating “Nothing!” at public events when asked what he will do about corruption in the game.

Sir Robin - Ran Away

Sir Robin – Ran Away

Regan has breathed into life the wonderful fiction of Monty Python’s Brave Sir Robin. He  spends more time running away than fearlessly facing his critics whilst his PR chief provides snide and contemptuous invective as cover for his and his boss’s retreat.

They are consummately arrogant and filled with contempt for the fans, but to be fair, they are no different from club directors in their disregard for fan opinion. In my experience there is a culture in football that deludes itself into thinking that the directors are doing the fans a favour by providing the football club for them. They actually expect gratitude from fans for taking their money and portray themselves as martyrs if those same fans seek to hold them accountable.

It’s a bit like your boss farting so much during a conversation that you feel compelled to say “pardon me!” and take the blame for the offence yourself.

Of course there are always wonderful words about the fans from the clubs, and from the SFA and SPFL. These are merely platitudinous lip service, a box-ticking exercise to be quickly completed before reminding fans that they “really don’t have the skill-set to have a say in the running of a modern football club”.

This from people who have presided over our country’s steep slide into the footballing wilderness where our clubs and national side have disappeared from prominence and high regard .

It is no surprise then that this kind of culture in clubs, which patronises and just about tolerates fans, has woven its way into the fabric of the governing bodies itself.

95% of football fans do not think the SFA (the “clubs”) can be trusted to run Scottish football. That is a staggering statistic

95% of football fans do not think the SFA (the “clubs”) can be trusted to run Scottish football. That is a staggering statistic, and one which provides at least enough discussion for greater accountability, but more likely a root and branch change in the governance of the game.

Too often in the past, the authorities have used partisan fan interest to divide and rule. The time has most definitely come for a mass, non-partisan fan representative body to challenge the authorities, to lobby government, and to wrest control of the game away from the mediocre, self-interested failures who have slowly destroyed it over the past three decades.

I believe that such a force is coming, and I hope SFM is part of it. The people currently charged with the running of our sport excel in only one area – in their contempt for the paying public.

It is time we moved into a new age, a post SFA age where accountability, integrity and love of sport, not riches, takes priority.

This entry was posted in General by Big Pink. Bookmark the permalink.
John Cole

About Big Pink

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

273 thoughts on “Accountability, Transparency, & Brave Sir Robin


  1. EASYJAMBOOCTOBER 3, 2016 at 18:58
    Former Rangers owner Craig Whyte COULD BE set to stand trial next year over an ALLEGED fraudulent takeover of the Ibrox club.
    No wonder Mr Whyte sleeps soundly,all this time and still nothing concrete on him.


  2. If Rangers, or any other taxpayers are failing to pay the money they have collected on behalf of  HMRC then HMRC can demand payment of a security. This is by way of a cash deposit or an acceptable guarantee. Failure to pay that security and then continuing to trade is an offence.

    However much simpler than that, if Rangers, or any other taxpayer does not pay over the money they have collected on behalf of HMRC then HMRC can and will move for a winding up order. That is exactly what they did with Hearts, with the club paying money at the last minute until they simply couldn’t pay any more. This at least in part led to Hearts being placed into administration and ultimately successfully negotiating a CVA. I am working on the basis that HMRC did not have a sufficient percentage of the debt to block that happening. 

    Bearing in mind any business in this position got there by spending money which wasn’t theirs and actually belonged to all of us.

    If Rangers are in this position or close to it then things are indeed dire. At this stage I can only take it as rumours though and it may well be more what people want to believe than reflecting any reality. 


  3. Re the hints that TRFC might not be paying their tax bills in full. That might NOT be the case of course, but surely HMRC could not sit back and allow this to happen for months again? 


  4. If I was going to bring pressure and focus onto what is otherwise a legitimate business transaction (the repayment of the 5m ex-Ashley loan plus 1.25m interest) then I would perhaps seek to extend the narrative that in so doing, creditors, particularly one that has proven troublesome to fatal depending on your perspective in the recent past) were once more outstanding.  

    Just saying.


  5. easyJamboOctober 3, 2016 at 18:58
    ‘…The BBC has provided a little more detail .’
    __________
    That saves me trying to sort out my scribbles to find which charges on the original Indictment are represented by the numbers I jotted down! But it would have been  handy to have had a copy of the new ,amended, Indictment!
    I think it is safe to say that the hearing this morning kicked off late (at about 10.20), and was over at 10.55.
    PS I got an email from the COPFS at 16.25 telling me that the gentleman in question is Mr Alex Prentice, QC.Why they couldn’t have told me on the phone is anybody’s guess!


  6. Smugas October 3, 2016 at 20:01
    If I was going to bring pressure and focus onto what is otherwise a legitimate business transaction (the repayment of the 5m ex-Ashley loan plus 1.25m interest) then I would perhaps seek to extend the narrative that in so doing, creditors, particularly one that has proven troublesome to fatal depending on your perspective in the recent past) were once more outstanding.  
    Just saying.
    =================================
    I still don’t get where the £5M repayment plus £1.25M interest comes from.  I have seen no official source indicating that interest was ever payable on the loan

    From a Rangers statement at the time
    ‘The facilities have been provided by existing lenders New Oasis Asset Limited (Dave King), Douglas Park, George Letham and George Taylor and by three new lenders, RIFC Director John Bennett and two additional Hong Kong based supporters, Barry Scott and Andy Ross.
    ‘RIFC’s board is delighted to welcome the new lenders who, as long-standing supporters of the Club, fit exactly into the profile of investors that RIFC has encouraged during this ongoing rebuilding phase. The new funding has all been provided on the same basis as other recent loans to RIFC.
    ‘The loans to RIFC were primarily utilised to fund repayment of the Sports Direct facility with the balance going towards the Group’s working capital requirements.
    ——————————
    …… and from RIFC’s last interim accounts:
    Reliance is still placed on shareholders to fund the shortfall that is required during the current rebuilding phase. The total interest free funds provided by shareholders at 31 December 2015 is £9.25m. Additional funds have been committed to cover the balance of the financial year to June 2016.
    ——————————
    The last RIFC accounts suggest that £5.5M of the £6.5M facility had been drawn down as at 7/3/16.  The last TRFC accounts released a week later indicated that £5.7M had been drawn down.
     
    If interest was payable on the loan then Dave King would have to have been lying in his statement in the accounts.

    ………… oh wait a minute 21


  7. HOMUNCULUSOCTOBER 3, 2016 at 19:57 

    However much simpler than that, if Rangers, or any other taxpayer does not pay over the money they have collected on behalf of HMRC then HMRC can and will move for a winding up order.

    =================================

    From a layman’s perspective I simply can’t understand why a WUO was not issued to Rangers in 2011/2012. It has now been established they stopped paying tax / N.I in October 2011, but HMRC did nothing until Rangers themselves went public on their financial predicament.

    Even if the train hits the buffers again, all the stops will be pulled out. I don’t rule out any sort of assistance for them, and I don’t expect their fans to give a single bit of thanks for it either! If it happens, it won’t be the fault of Rangers, it will be the fault of everyone else.  


  8.   The football authorities should demand a Fit and Proper test of the Ibrox entity.Fit to last the season and Proper financial scrutiny. We know it won’t happen of course.


  9. EJ

    I absolutely agree but there clearly wasn’t enough ‘value’ in King allegedly laundering his £5m from Hong Kong to simply replace it all shiny new.  He appears to have required a little cream on top with his £1.25m.  As I said that’s still a legitimate if wholly unpopular transaction so to do it now, relatively publicly, hints at desperation.  And to do it using ST funds given current published trading figures is simply Canute all over again.  Put it this way, its highly unlikely that he could repeat the trick 13 times to recoup his £20m!  I’m sure even the Record would notice after about 7…..10 maybe! 

    But equally, my point was simply  to highlight that Phil’s outlook seemed to me that it obviously wasn’t enough to simply re-emphasise the interest transaction (not just uncovered by Phil incidentally), but instead to imply that said funds (the 1.25m) might be better used on institutional creditors at the moment.  That should bring a much sharper focus to matters.  


  10. UPTHEHOOPSOCTOBER 4, 2016 at 07:18     From a layman’s perspective I simply can’t understand why a WUO was not issued to Rangers in 2011/2012. It has now been established they stopped paying tax / N.I in October 2011, but HMRC did nothing until Rangers themselves went public on their financial predicament.

    ======================================

    Without actually knowing what negotiations and agreements were in place between the owners of Rangers and HMRC it is difficult to discuss that. For example if a debt was under appeal would HMRC move for a winding up order, I doubt they even could. We would then need to consider when the appeal process finalised.

    If a new owner came in and made new arrangements to pay outstanding debts would they then be given some time to come good on those agreements. If they did not then would HMRC act, for example by seeking arrestment orders on bank accounts and Sheriff’s Officers visiting Ibrox stadium. 

    I’m not sure when Rangers went public on their financial predicament, however if it was when Whyte went public and said he would be putting the company into administration some time in the near future HMRC’s immediate response (if I remember correctly) was to petition for winding up. Which they withdraw on the understanding the business went into administration that day. On the day Rangers went into administration the club was a dead man walking with no prospect of a CVA.

    If HMRC sought to achieve Rangers liquidation they got what they wanted.


  11. Re the Whyte Case

    Interesting post by True Blue on JJ’s site last night re Prentice & the Lord Advocate – certainly is a small world up here , especially in legal circles it seems !


  12. HOMUNCULUSOCTOBER 4, 2016 at 09:56

    Agreed. As discussed previously we all get caught up comparing apples with pears.

    No-one knows what goes on behind the scenes at HMRC and what their aims are with regard to different companies.

    The end result for the Rangers Oldco was the same in that they were monitoring the situation at Ibrox and took action at a point that suited their needs.

    While some people will argue their club may have been disadvantaged by the delay in bringing the hammer down, in the bigger picture a month here or there doesn’t amount to a hill of beans IMHO.

    Please remember HMRC won’t give two hoots if a Motherwell, St Johnstone or whoever may have missed out on a euro spot or a few extra quid for finish higher up the league. It will simply not be on their radar and not within their remit to assist other companies in that manner. 

    It really is simple, in that at some point Hector wants his money, accountancy trickery and delays on tax payments has to end and sustainability has to be achieved (thus tempering one’s ambitions) otherwise the cash flow situation simply catches up with you.

    It was ever thus with the oldco and it could be the same with the newco unless they pull in their belt or find new sources of income.

    At present the newco are either just breaking even or have begun to overspend on wages etc with no signs of any resolution of the retail deal or improvements in sponsorship deals to gain new income. The RRM’s pockets will soon be empty. 

    IMHO all that is left now is raiding the fans piggy bank to keep the lights on for a bit longer.

    That means the squad they have now is what they are likely to have for the rest of the season unless they can off load Barton and free up some cash.

    As I keep saying with the potential income  a decent competitive team can be put out at Ibrox but with the restriction on current income and the level of annual outgoings (plus potential and recognized future maintenance costs for the stadium) the strength of the team will always be limited and capable of being beat by a number of teams in the top flight and in Euro qualifiers if they get there.


  13. WOTTPI

    That’s the sad but true climax that this saga is coming to.  You’re going to be left with a shell of a club (don’t start) that no serious investor will touch (when as you say there should be a decent if suitably ‘trimmed’ underlying entity there) and the fans will be left to fund it just to save losing face if nothing else.  That is verging on emotional blackmail and the perpetrator would be well advised to proceed with caution in my opinion.  But then it’ll be interesting to see the Record and its ilk report that they knew this was coming but for whatever reason chose not to report it.  


  14. SMUGASOCTOBER 4, 2016 at 11:38

    There is nothing wrong with fans, be they regular Joe’s or guys with a few extra quid to spare being emotionally blackmailed to keeping the club alive.

    Plenty Jambo’s are doing just that because the club tugs at their heartstrings and they know how close they were to the whole thing going down the toilet.

    Fans of other clubs do exactly the same week in week out and have done so for years.

    T’Rangers are in the position that because the tap has been turned off they are now having to operate in the same manner to everyone else apart from Celtic.

    The problem for many T’Rangers fans and the media is that while they know deep down what is going on they can’t bear to publicly acknowledge the reality of the situation.

    They are now an average team with an average manager. They have a chance at top six and maybe as Euro spot. A cup run is not beyond them but when it comes to the crunch they are miles away from where the Oldco was and a galaxy away from Celtic and Euro riches.

    The quicker everyone dropped the Billy Big Baws attitude and got on with the business of supporting the team in a decent manner come hell or high water and through a long term rebuild the happier they (and everyone else) would be.


  15. amen brudda!

    (just on a side point, why would you allow your club to go down the toilet when the cheaper and apparently equally effective liquidation route was available to you? 0707 and thrice 07

    Oh, sorry meant to add – average team (you’re harsh I was actually impressed by them, but I digress) with an average manager and a choice to operate sustainably which they are choosing to ignore to their detriment.

    Good Blog BP. Just proves they can’t even do corruption competently


  16. I had an idle half hour or so at lunch, and was trawling through bits and pieces on the press coverage of the Ashley loans at the time( to refresh my failing memory of how badly the matter was reported by the SMSM) and incidentally came across an article in “Management Today” which appeared in January 2015.

    It annoyed me.

    So I have emailed the following:

    To:editorialmanagementtoday@haymarket.com

    Dear MT editorial management,
    I have only just read for the first time (while researching other material) the article in MT of 16 January 2015, as updated on 20 February 2015, entitled ” What does Mike Ashley want with Rangers?”

    Time may heal all wounds, but it cannot erase errors, even if unconsciously perpetrated.
    I therefore have to draw to your attention a particularly serious error in the article I refer to above, so that at least you who read this will know of it.

    The error is contained in the opening sentence of paragraph 4, which reads”In the midst of this crisis, which kicked off with the club entering adminisration and being demoted to Scotland’s Third Division in 2012, ..”

    That statement is in flat contradiction to the legal, commercial and sporting facts surrounding the fatal collapse of Rangers Football Club.

    That football club went into Administration. It was not bought out of Administration. It was Liquidated , and now lives on in the limbo of Liquidation. It lost its entitlement to a share in the then Scottish Premier league and the Scottish Football Association.It therefore ceased to be able to compete in any professional football league in Scotland. It died as a football club.

    The assets of the dead club were sold ( at,it seems, a pre-arranged, very cheap price) to one Charles Green.This individual set up a new entity, which as a new club applied for membership of a Scottish football league. The SPL rejected the application outright. The then Scottish Football League Divisions 1 and 2 also refused to admit the new club.

    In a peculiar (and very, very secret deal ) an utterly disgraceful (in the minds of many) arrangement was reached under which the new club was admitted into, not’relegated’, to the 3rd division.

    The new club was initially named ‘SevcoScotland’, but very quickly changed its name to “The Rangers Football Club Ltd”, the share in which were very quickly sold to the entity set up under the very grand title of “Rangers International Football Club”,

    There is little doubt that this was done with the intention of pretending to prospective investors ( immediately prior to an IPO) that the Rangers Football Club of 1872 had merely changed hands and that somehow the new “The Rangers Football Club LT ” was the identical club.

    Be that as it may, the essential point is that your article is seriously in error, and must have also have misled your readers at the time.

    I would be grateful if you would aknowledge that error, preferably in your next issue, but at least to me, personally, by email, after such investigation as you may wish to do.

    Yours faithfully,
    ( real name and address)
    I feel that if even one non-Scotland based editor knows that there are questions to be asked, the world of football is a better place.
    Just a pity there aren’t a few Telegraph investigative journalists in this neck of the woods, to force the SFA to ‘show their workings’ to justify he actions they took /did not take in relation to the whole disgusting, cheating disaster that waas RFC(IL).


  17. Up the Hoops.
    A pretty clear picture is now emerging of what took place in March, April and May 2011 iro HMRC and if it goes to trial everyone will be aware.
    Let’s just say that the idea that HMRC were hell bent on RFC becoming insolvent is well wide of the mark.
    I see JJ picking up a little bit of it but best let wheels of justice grind.
    Big Pink.
    Great blog. Regan will not last beyond end of trial schediled for next April. Neither should his disdainful PR sidekick.
    The universe is indeed unfolding as it should, a nano second at a time.


  18. Homunculus
    If a new owner came in and made new arrangements to pay outstanding debts would they then be given some time to come good on those agreements. If they did not then would HMRC act, for example by seeking arrestment orders on bank accounts and Sheriff’s Officers visiting Ibrox stadium.
    ======
    Yer in the kitchen but not near enough to the cooker.?
    Check the indictment, but I’d say  caw canny on commenting.


  19. Wottpi

    Please remember HMRC won’t give two hoots if a Motherwell, St Johnstone or whoever may have missed out on a euro spot or a few extra quid for finish higher up the league. It will simply not be on their radar and not within their remit to assist other companies in that manner.
    =======
    Totally correct which is why there are UEFA FFP regulations to protect the Motherwells and St  Johnstones (and Celtic) which the SFA are charged with applying.
    Did they? The public utterances in 2011 by SFA in that regard iro the wtc  are all over the place, but I’ve never heard one that said HMRC were allowing a postponement that met FFP rules. 
    Most seemed to pick on RFC accounts of 1st April 2011 that described the wtc bill as “potential” and waiting ‘assessment resolution’. Was that true? In that infamous 7th Dec 2011 e mail Regan refers back to those accounts to justify granting the UEFA licence.
    Later, on Twitter Regan gave us the “bill is in dispute” line or was it “continuing discussions”?
    So which was it?  Might be next year now before it all comes out but it will  and I think it will show everyone was doing what they thought was right, but were actually damaging themselves and our game in the process.


  20. The following is a copy of the charges laid against Craig Whyte. I am sure they have been read and re-read a number of times, by competent exponents of the Law of Scotland, to ensure there is nothing, at least nothing obvious to even the sharpest legal mind, wrong with the wording and, in particular, that nothing that Craig Whyte may have bought, fraudulently or otherwise, is misrepresented or wrongly described.

    I have highlighted, for everyone’s benefit, where the Crown Prosecution Service have mentioned what Whyte bought. It seems to suggest to this layman quite clearly, and plainly, that the club and the company are not separate entities and that ‘the Club’, itself, was bought, which it could not have been if it was not a corporate entity! Only a fool, or someone wilfully stating that is not the truth, would say otherwise.

    I may, of course, have missed something within the charges that state that the ‘Club’ and the company were separate in some way, or there may have been some accompanying document that I have not seen (a side letter, perhaps) that makes it clear ‘Club’ and company are not the same. If I am in error, I am sure someone will be able to correct me!

    My apologies to those who would prefer for us to move on from discussing this matter, but tough cheese, for as long as the SMSM continue to ignore what is patently obvious, I consider it the duty of this blog to bring up every single action that proves the truth of the argument, one way or the other.

    The second last passage I have highlighted is as follows and seems to state, exactly, what most of us on here have been saying since 2012.

    ‘and at the time said financial assistance was given the Club in which the shares had been acquired was a public company’

    I’ll repeat that very pertinent, and extremely legal, part of that quote! ‘the Club in which the shares had been acquired was a public company’!

    Over to you, Mr Regan, Mr Doncaster, and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all…seems a slam dunk to me!

    HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY AT GLASGOW
    Continued Preliminary Hearing: 3 October 2016
    CRAIG THOMAS WHYTE, born 18 January 1971, you are indicted at the instance of Her Majesty’s Advocate, and the charges against you are that:
    (001) between 1 May 2010 and 9 May 2011, both dates inclusive, at the premises occupied by The Rangers Football Club plc (“Club”) with registration number SC004276, and at a slew of other corporate addresses that I have removed for brevity elsewhere in England, and at addresses meantime to the prosecutor unknown in France and Monaco, you CRAIG THOMAS WHYTE, with intent to acquire a majority and controlling stake in the shareholding of the Club from Murray through Wavetower Limited a company incorporated under the Companies Acts with registration number 07380537 and having its registered office at 4 Bedford Row, London this being a company incorporated for the purpose of and the means used to effect said acquisition and a company managed and controlled by you and also being a wholly owned subsidiary of Liberty Capital Limited a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands with registration number 421410 having its registered office at c/o LWB Company Limited, PO Box 92, Road Town, Tortola, this being a company owned by you,
    (i) did both directly and by the hands of your representatives namely Andrew Ellis, Philip Betts, William Lee, Gary Martin Withey and David Henry Grier, all c/o Police Service of Scotland, Gartcosh, pretend to the Officers of Murray namely Sir David Murray, Michael McGill and David Horne, all c/o Police Service of Scotland, Gartcosh and to the legal representatives of Murray namely Dundas and Wilson LLP that you, Wavetower Limited and Liberty Capital Limited individually or collectively had funds available to make all the payments stipulated by the representatives of Murray as being necessary to enable Wavetower Limited to acquire a controlling and majority stake in the shareholding of the Club from Murray and more particularly did pretend to said representatives in negotiations leading to and within a Share Purchase Agreement dated 6 May 2011 signed and concluded by you on behalf of Wavetower Limited and Liberty Capital Limited with Murray that Wavetower Limited had immediately available from its own and third party resources on an unconditional basis the cash resources necessary:- (a) to meet its obligations under said Agreement to contribute to the Club an amount equal to £5,000,000 for the playing squad, £1,700,000 for a Health and Safety liability and an amount equal to the small tax case liability of £2,800,000 said sums to be held and paid under the terms of the Purchaser’s Solicitor’s Undertaking of even date; (b) to pay the amount required to be paid under the Assignation Agreement dated 5 May 2011 between the Bank of Scotland PLC, Wavetower Limited, the Club and Subsidiaries of £18,000,962.29 and (c) to fund the reasonably foreseeable ongoing working capital requirements of the Club of £5,000,000,
    (ii) the truth being as you well knew that said funds were not available and said cash resources were not immediately available on an unconditional basis at the time said Agreements were concluded in respect that the sums pretended by you to represent such immediately available and unconditionally held cash resources in fact comprised £3,925,000 from Merchant Turnaround plc and the Trustees of the and £24,357,094 from Ticketus LLP and Ticketus 2 LLP (“Ticketus”) which was held subject to an agreement or agreements being entered into between the Club and Ticketus after said acquisition in respect of the sale and purchase of season tickets for the three year period following said acquisition,
    (iii) and you did thereby induce the said Officers of Murray to negotiate, enter into and conclude the said Share Purchase Agreement dated 6 May 2011 between Murray, Wavetower Limited and Liberty Capital Limited and to transfer 92,842,388 of ordinary shares being a majority and controlling stake in the shareholding in the Club, from Murray to Wavetower Limited and did thus obtain through Wavetower Limited 92,842,388 ordinary shares being a majority and controlling stake in the shareholding of the Club by fraud;
    (002) you CRAIG THOMAS WHYTE, being an officer of a company, namely a director of The Rangers Football Club plc, a company incorporated under the Companies Acts, with company number SC004276 and having its registered office at Ibrox Stadium, 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow (hereinafter referred to as the “Club”), did authorise or permit the Club unlawfully to give financial assistance directly or indirectly for the purpose of reducing or discharging the said liability of Wavetower to the Bank of Scotland plc, and at the time said financial assistance was given the Club in which the shares had been acquired was a public company, in that upon appointment as director you did cause the Club to enter into a loan agreement with Wavetower and, in implementation of the said loan agreement, to lend £18,000,000 to Wavetower, which in turn allowed Wavetower to meet its liability incurred to the Bank of Scotland plc for the purpose of the said acquisition: CONTRARY to Sections 678(3) and 680(1) and (2) of the Companies Act 2006.


  21. AJ,

    I hate to dampen your flame but the clue, ou will quickly be told, is in your second emboldened passage 

    The Rangers Football Club plc (“Club”) with registration number SC004276

    What will be argued, rightly or more likely wrongly, is that in specifically highlighting that by “club” they meant the company that this somehow magically bestowed a degree of separation for the actual club as opposed to the company that liked to call itself a club.   If you need to further establish what the actual club is as opposed to the company pretending to be the club then you will find safety and similar thinkers in the assumption that bad stuff like debt, tax evasion, creditors etc is the sole responsibility of the company whereby the good stuff like player contracts (sometimes even the rubbish ones), formal titles and expense accounts must be attributed to the club, the proper club that is, not the pretendy mortal one.     


  22. “…Even if the 95% (nearly 2% of the match attending public) are mistaken or deluded, it is a very badly managed industry that would ignore the perception of mistrust held by its customers…”
    =============================================
    Good blog BP, and a very worthwhile poll if only to validate the consensus.

    But this is what I don’t get: it was blindingly obvious for the last 2 or 3 decades that kids were not playing footie in the streets or in public parks like they used to before.
    Kids had an ever increasing choice of leisure pursuits.

    So, with an expected, dwindling pool of paying football punters you would think that the clubs and the SFA / SPFL would have been working incredibly hard to retain their customer base – and to entice new supporters.
    …but they seem to have done the exact opposite, and managed to alienate many supporters.

    Is it simply a result of short-term / self-interest planning by the football executives ?
    The long-term outlook was looking grim for Scottish football, IMO, even in the early 90’s.
    It’s not exactly rocket science.

    The SFA, SPFL and the clubs have failed to protect and develop Scottish football, and perhaps that is also reflected in the abysmal national team’s performance since ’98 ?

    The poll above should have been the first question on the SDS Survey.

    Would be great if an SMSM hack quoted this poll in a relevant question posed in the direction of Hampden…  [I know].


  23. Smugas
    October 4, 2016 at 14:5

    AJ,
    I hate to dampen your flame but the clue, ou will quickly be told, is in your second emboldened passage
    “The Rangers Football Club plc (“Club”) with registration number SC004276
    What will be argued, rightly or more likely wrongly, is that in specifically highlighting that by “club” they meant the company that this somehow magically bestowed a degree of separation for the actual club as opposed to the company that liked to call itself a club. If you need to further establish what the actual club is as opposed to the company pretending to be the club then you will find safety and similar thinkers in the assumption that bad stuff like debt, tax evasion, creditors etc is the sole responsibility of the company whereby the good stuff like player contracts (sometimes even the rubbish ones), formal titles and expense accounts must be attributed to the club, the proper club that is, not the pretendy mortal one.
    __________________________

    Smugas, thanks for responding. I will respond knowing that you are not arguing with the basics, and hopefully I won’t come across as thinking you are19

    I never for a moment imagined that all those wilfully in ignorance would accept what this document says as ‘proof’ that it is a new club, what you highlight has been pointed out to them before. However, the charges state, quite clearly, that, ‘…and at the time said financial assistance was given the Club in which the shares had been acquired was a public company…’ Why would they use the word ‘club’ instead of ‘company’ unless there is no doubt that the shares were bought in the club? There is no need, and nothing gained in brevity or otherwise, to use ‘club’ in this clear statement where the purchase of shares is discussed.

    There is no ambiguity there and there is no place for brevity there either. Indeed, in criminal charges, there can be no place for brevity such as using ‘club’ in place of ‘company’ unless there can be absolutely no dispute over it’s meaning, and if there is the slightest chance of dispute the defence would (or maybe just might) jump on it. If there was any chance that the ‘club’ was separate from the company then that would have been made clear at the start, or, more likely, the word ‘club’ just would not be used! Besides, if the writer of the document was only looking for a shorter alternative to ‘The Rangers Football Club plc’, why not just use the word ‘company’ as would be the case in every other instance?

    My thoughts on what this means to the argument was not in terms of the rank and file supporters, they are never going to change their minds on that no matter what evidence is presented, it is just that here is a concrete statement that shares were bought in the ‘club’ and, unlike a civil case, any ambiguity in a criminal case could see it thrown out of court, and so, if there was anything, at all, surrounding the proceedings that could be designated a ‘club’ ie another entity, ethereal or otherwise, then the word ‘club’ would not appear within these charges.

    Put more simply, if there was a club (called Rangers) that was separate from the company, then there is no way they would use ‘club’ as meaning ‘The Rangers Football Club plc’. In criminal proceedings (though even in civil law) such ambiguity could be fatal to the prosecution case.  

    I’d suggest the power of this ‘evidence’ would be when debating (in the very unlikely event) with anyone directly involved in the governance of Scottish football, or even at UEFA or FIFA! It might even send the likes of Keith Jackson off to bed if raised in a Twitter exchange21  It certainly trumps anything LNS might have said, and is in addition to all the other legal points raised in earlier civil cases.


  24.  It certainly trumps anything LNS might have said

     

    Arrgghhh.  Heretic!  Burn the witch.  Burn the witch…

    (Sorry BP but you started it bringing Monty Python into the equation 21)


  25. easyJamboOctober 4, 2016 at 14:04
    ‘…John Clark – JJ has posted the full text of the latest version of the indictment in his blog. ‘
    ______
    Thanks, Ej: I’ve drawn a blank when I tried the link a minute ago.Has it been pulled, or is it just me?
    I imagine that AJ’s version is based on it, though, and it’s pretty much what we reasoned any amendment would be, I think.


  26. “95% of football fans do not think the SFA (the “clubs”) can be trusted to run Scottish football”.

    A good insight BP for fans who care enough to read up on just what has gone on in our game.
    Most fans sadly I’d argue have other things to do and just want it all to get better.
    They just want to support their teams and talk about football the game not the business.

    The paid-for servants and the clubs have been in it together right from the start and and will stick together right to the end.
    Nothing will change if they can help it and they will finesse any niggles along the way and pivot to protect each other like Mcleish and Miller used to do.

    The reality is Regan, Doncaster, Je Suis SFA, Bryson et al have never been off piste.

    Complicity abounds between them and their controlling committee members and the most complicit are the key opinion-forming heads of our Premier clubs.
    We know who they are.


  27. The club is in brackets after the company is to indicate that word club is used in the document it is to be read as synonymous with company – they are one and the same, always have been always will be. Additionally the only way to buy the club would be to buy the company via its shares. The shares were not bought as part of a basket of assets at any stage. Truth will out.


  28. Over the weekend, we ran a quick poll on Twitter.
     We asked this single question;Do you trust the SFA to administer football in the interests of the sport?
    Around 1500 took part and the percentage shares were as follows
    No: 95%Yes: 3%Don’t Know: 2%

    =======================================

    I could be wrong, but the sample size here compares to that used by opinion polling companies round about election time. The results are pretty damning. I still maintain there cannot be a more mistrusted football association anywhere else in the developed world. 


  29. Finloch,

    I agree that the subset of fans who voted in the poll are perhaps not typical of the whole set. However even that is the case it would appear to indicate that when presented with the information and the opportunity to judge, an overwhelming number of people have scant regard for the honesty and ability of the people in charge at Hampden.

    The challenge, as ever, is for us to take our message and get it to the eyes and ears of those who have not yet seen or heard it. 

    Social media is far more potent four years on from SFM’s inception, and the MSM far less so. This is not a decades long struggle to see some truth emerge from the contamination of patronage and self interest.

    This will happen before too long, even in spite of the rigour of those perpetrators of the great deception .


  30. UpTheHoops

    The sample size, as I said in the OP is significant and as you say comparable to sample sizes for UK-wide national polling. However, it is very much an activist poll, and the electorate was ot at all scientifically constructed. 

    As I said to Finloch, it is not unreasonable to assume that folks who know a thing or two about the behaviour of the SFA and their like over the last five years have come to a pretty unequivocal judgement.


  31. In case no one has seen this

    http://www.talkingbaws.com/2016/09/pink-floyds-roger-waters-projects-image-celtic-fans-palestine-display-mexico-concert//

    ——————–
    A quote by Frank Zappa came to mind recently.

    Although aimed primarily at rock journalists I think this is apt when considering our own press.

      JOURNALISTS:

    “People who can’t write,
    interviewing people who can’t talk,
    for people who can’t read”

    Thanks for the tech help Tris. Donation will be with you soon

    HS


  32. http://www.clydefc.co.uk/news/2016/10/03/5296/#.V_P5ZvArKUk

    Great to see this initiative and the club trying to engage with its support after a horrendous and contentious past ten years.
    I asked a couple of pointed questions regarding turning their gaze farther afield to the administration of the game. Hopefully there will be some follow up on those in the wider report. A previous question of mine resulted in the response that “the SFA/SPFL does not speak for the club”. So while there have been plenty of comments on here that the clubs ARE the SFA, that view may not necessarily be shared by the clubs themselves. 


  33. The famous quote was “football without fans means nothing”

    The SFA seem to have read this quote as “fans in football mean nothing” Maybe someone should remind them of who made this quote and what he gave to football.
    Is is incredible that we have a situation of another club at Ibrox possibly heading toward insolvency and utter silence prevails at the SFA and within our smsm.  Really what will it take for anyone in the smsm to approach this as they know what we all know (and possibly more).
    I am surprised that only 95% had no faith in our SFA (maybe SFA voted?)
    If CW goes to trial it will be enlightening to us all. I have faith that the truth in the long run will prevail and SDM will be shown for what he is and more importantly for the damage he caused to Scottish Football.


  34. Football is a public-facing industry. In Scotland, because of poor TV revenues negotiated ineffectually by, wait for it, the governing bodies, the sport relies almost 100% on attendances – on fans staying loyal to the sport. Those fans (you would think) should be cultivated, engaged with, and paid heed to.
    Staggeringly though, the SFA’s civil service, in the shape of their full time executives and PR machinery have done the opposite. Instead of engaging with the customer base, they have actively waged war against them.
    On top of that, there are excruciatingly bad choices made on match scheduling, venues for neutral showpiece games, and the self-acquittal process of the cup final inquiry. Not to mention that those incompetents who run the game have presided over and actively helped bring about the (arguably) most bitter and widest polarisation of fans in the history of the game.
    —————
    Had a talk with a friend today who was going to take his son to the scotland game and introduce him to football (he is just at that age) but seen the price of tickets and it will be McDonalds and pictures instead he said


  35. BP, are you planning to formally communicate the poll result via e.g. a blanket email to your SMSM contacts, etc. and ‘cc’ the SFA ?

    The SFA should be made aware that anyone who has an interest in Scottish football is also aware of this ‘vote of no confidence’.


  36. Higgy’s ShoesOctober 4, 2016 at 19:46
    ______________________________________________
    Brilliant from RW and the man is a legend. You should listen to his other interviews if you haven’t already04


  37. JOHN CLARKOCTOBER 4, 2016 at 13:23       29 Votes 
    I had an idle half hour or so at lunch, and was trawling through bits and pieces on the press coverage of the Ashley loans at the time( to refresh my failing memory of how badly the matter was reported by the SMSM) and incidentally came across an article in “Management Today” which appeared in January 2015.
    It annoyed me.
    So I have emailed the following:
    ———————————
    This reminded me, i saw an colum in the sun newsparer by Shaf Rasul, he does the financial page or something like that.
    Anyway he followed the same lines, relegated,demoted etc. So taking inspiration from John Clark i e-mailed to correct the mistakes in his colum, as you can see picture 1. picture 2 shows your enquiry has been sent, we will get back shortly. Thank you.
    That was some weeks Ago, still waiting for reply


  38. picture 1
    sorry computer screen sticking quite a bit this evening,don’t know what is wrong with it


  39. StevieBC

    Yes, we will be mailing the poll results with a link to the blog.


  40. Big PinkOctober 5, 2016 at 02:33
    ‘.. we will be mailing the poll results with a link to the blog.’
    _________
    I would imagine that UEFA ,FIFA and especially  Shona Robinson, MSP, Minister for Sport are on the mailing list?
    UEFA and FIFA can be assumed to  an obvious footballing governance interest in the results of such a poll, even if ‘unscientific’: that percentage of such sizeable field of free voters has significance.
    Shona Robinson, as Minister whose department gives public funds to the SFA, has a more clear-cut responsibility to take an interest , on the part of the tax-payer whose money appears to be going to  an organisation which by any reckoning has lost the trust of its ‘public’
    Particularly  since the good faith of a former First Minister was in many minds compromised by  his secret and inappropriate interventions on behalf of club which cheated the taxman.


  41. Cluster OneOctober 4, 2016 at 21:07
    ‘….i e-mailed to correct the mistakes in his colum,’
    ________
    We may not get answers, Cluster One, but we know that we have at least put forward the truth, which an individual editor or journalist can check, especially when the facts of liquidation of RFC(IL) and the incorporation date of the new club, and its rejection by the SPL and SFL divs 1 and 2 are so easy to check.
    Of course, if they are of the same stamp as our SMSM folk, they will not let facts get in the way of prejudice , or bolster their journalistic courage to the point of making them brave enough to print the truth. But they will do so at the expense of their personal and professional integrity.
    On the other hand, if they are inded true journalists, they will be more accurate in any further reporting they do that touches on the ‘saga.’


  42. In the comments mention is made of contributions and some of JJ.  I have just asked JJ if he contributes to Wikipedia, but no answer have I received.  My reason for asking is that much of his stuff is cut and pasted from Wiki.  It gives him the allure of wisdom and being well read.  Try comparing his second and third paras of Bonfire of the vanities with Wiki.  One wonders where the rest of his stuff comes from


  43. WALTER NEFFOCTOBER 5, 2016 at 15:10
    In the comments mention is made of contributions and some of JJ.  I have just asked JJ if he contributes to Wikipedia, but no answer have I received.  My reason for asking is that much of his stuff is cut and pasted from Wiki.  It gives him the allure of wisdom and being well read.  Try comparing his second and third paras of Bonfire of the vanities with Wiki.  One wonders where the rest of his stuff comes from
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    Well if he reads a lot of Wikipedia he probably is well read


  44. Joey Barton issued with notice of complaintWednesday, 05 October 2016
    Alleged Party in Breach: Joey Barton (Rangers FC)
    Disciplinary Rule allegedly breached:
    Disciplinary Rule 31: In that between 1st July and 15th September 2016, both dates inclusive, you placed 44 bets upon football matches, and accordingly gambled upon football matches in contravention of Disciplinary Rule 31.
    Principal hearing date: Thursday, 27th October 2016
    Mr Barton has until Wednesday, 12th October to respond to the complaint.
    ———————————-
    It has taken a couple of weeks for the “leak” to be acted upon by the SFA. I can’t see any more than a rap on the knuckles for this one, although Rangers might want him made an example of so that he can be left out the side for longer, or even sack him to get him off the wage bill


  45. This is how Club Statements should be written in an open and transparent way (from York City after a 6-1 defeat last night)

    Managerial situation update
    FOLLOWING a meeting with the Chairman this morning, and in light of the disappointing performance and result last night, York City manager Jackie McNamara has considered his position going forward.

    It has been decided that, if the team fails to gain a positive result at Braintree Town on Saturday, the York City manager will tender his resignation.

    The manager will be looking for a passionate and committed reaction from the players after the capitulation at Nethermoor Park on Tuesday evening.

    http://www.yorkcityfootballclub.co.uk/news/article/2016-17/club-statement-3349558.aspx#bRpLtqP8BZ75udts.99


  46. easyJambo
    October 5, 2016 at 16:25

    Joey Barton issued with notice of complaintWednesday, 05 October 2016 Alleged Party in Breach: Joey Barton (Rangers FC) Disciplinary Rule allegedly breached: Disciplinary Rule 31: In that between 1st July and 15th September 2016, both dates inclusive, you placed 44 bets upon football matches, and accordingly gambled upon football matches in contravention of Disciplinary Rule 31. Principal hearing date: Thursday, 27th October 2016 Mr Barton has until Wednesday, 12th October to respond to the complaint. ———————————- It has taken a couple of weeks for the “leak” to be acted upon by the SFA. I can’t see any more than a rap on the knuckles for this one, although Rangers might want him made an example of so that he can be left out the side for longer, or even sack him to get him off the wage bill
    ____________________

    Not excusing Barton in any way, but there would appear to be no charges relating to betting against his own team, nor even a match involving his own team, so he can expect, in line with other Ibrox based gamblers, a paltry fine and, perhaps, a suspended suspension.

    Should TRFC try to use this misdemeanour as an excuse to sack him, I’m sure they would find their own lack of action in those previous cases a bit of a stumbling block.

    I suspect Barton, himself, will view this as nothing more than added material for his next autobiography, and worth every penny!


  47. JOHN CLARKOCTOBER 5, 2016 at 11:53 Particularly  since the good faith of a former First Minister was in many minds compromised by  his secret and inappropriate interventions on behalf of club which cheated the taxman.

    ===============================

    The same man who said recently you can’t have Ying without Yang, no matter what. However it certainly appears to be okay with him for Ying to pay all their taxes in full and time, while Yang doesn’t have to bother. As long as Yang survives that is okay.

    He should never have got involved in any of this. 


  48. easyJamboOctober 5, 2016 at 16:25
    Joey Barton issued with notice of complaintWednesday, 05 October 2016 Alleged Party in Breach: Joey Barton (Rangers FC) Disciplinary Rule allegedly breached: Disciplinary Rule 31: In that between 1st July and 15th September 2016, both dates inclusive, you placed 44 bets upon football matches, and accordingly gambled upon football matches in contravention of Disciplinary Rule 31. Principal hearing date: Thursday, 27th October 2016 Mr Barton has until Wednesday, 12th October to respond to the complaint. ———————————- It has taken a couple of weeks for the “leak” to be acted upon by the SFA. I can’t see any more than a rap on the knuckles for this one, although Rangers might want him made an example of so that he can be left out the side for longer, or even sack him to get him off the wage bill
    …………………………..
    What a coincidence
    Just as Bartons 3 weeks suspension (presumably without pay) is coming to an end
    The SFA step in to spin another 3 weeks of indecision which provide the angry people with an excuse to continue the suspension (presumably without pay)
    Plus of course
    A further number of weeks suspension pending any appeal Barton might make
    Then
    Yet more weeks suspension when(no doubt) the appeal is unsuccessful 
    Anyone would think the real name of the game was to save Bartons wages and help keep the show on the road
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    And
    For those who may have forgotten the original story
    The source of all media reports on this story was an unattributed comment by an anonymous person at the Press Association along the lines of
    “It is “understood” that Joey Barton is the subject of a joint investigation by the Gambling Commission and the SFA into betting on the Barca v Celtic  football match
    Interesting that the Gambling Commission have now dropped out of the picture now that it has served its purpose in raising the gravitas
    No doubt their  Press Officer will now be plagued by the SMSM


  49. Auldheid
    October 4, 2016 at 13:28
     
    Nice touch in the last line, Max Ehrmann or Les Crane? 🙂
     


  50. Just listened to part 2 of BBC Sportsound’s “Rehabilitate ‘two-fingers’ Ferguson” campaign. He is oh, so,so passionate about Scotland, after all.
    Perhaps, having given him air time to pitch himself for the St Mirren job last  week ( someone at Paisley 2021 Stadium learly cannot be on message, since the Barry boy didn’t get the job) ‘The Rangers’FC Ltd’ supporters’ club( BBC Sportsound branch) thought they had better do some special pleading on his behalf!


  51. GOOSYGOOSY
    What no MW out in the press waving a couple of sheets of A4 threatening to expose many more gambling footie players .
    Looks like JB is on his own this time .
    Do you think that JB has made enough cash from the game to decline a gagging order when being pushed out the door ,if so it could get a tad embarassing for the new club ,as we all know JB likes to inform ANYONE who will listen as to what he thinks .
    This could get messi ,pity they didn’t 


  52. Re the Joey Barton betting allegations. When Iain Black was charged the media line was ‘they are all at it, Black was just unlucky enough to be caught’. I doubt we’ll see the same this time. 

    This stinks to the high heavens. 


  53. Apparently Barcabhoy has tweeted published official extracts showing that Rangers Retail Ltd is now legally controlled by Ashley with over 75% of the issued shares owned by Sports Direct, even after the £5M loan was repaid.  It appears he achieved this by issuing new shares when the loan was in place.  Unfortunately I do not have access to BB’s Twitter account, but I’m sure that perhaps EJ may be able to explain the significance of the extracts to us. 


  54. goosygoosyOctober 5, 2016 at 18:38
    ‘…No doubt their Press Officer will now be plagued by the SMSM.’
    ___________
    Don’t know about the SMSM,goosy goosy, but I have  written to the Gambling Commission:

    “To info@gamblingcommission.gov.ukToday at 20:46
    ( For the attention of Mr Bill Moyes)

    Dear Mr Moyes,
    Having just looked up the ‘Gambling Commission’ , I note that you have only just recently been appointed as Chair of the Gambling Commission.Let me offer you my congratulations, and wish you every personal success in what at times must be a complex and many-faceted job.

    The reason I was looking for the web-site was so that I could ask whether the Commission has any powers to insist that, where a gambling outlet carries out its duties to inform sports bodies of suspiciously-circumstanced betting, it owes a duty of confidentiality to the person(s) or organisations on whom or on which at that stage only ‘suspicion’ falls, leaving it to the sports body to carry out its own investigations, and NOT leaking to news media the name(s) of those suspected?

    I am prompted to write for this reason:
    The following appeared in the ‘Mirror’ on 20 September 2016:

    “Joey Barton facing SECOND ban as Scottish FA probe allegations he bet on Celtic match
    09:12, 20 Sep 2016 Updated 09:38, 20 Sep 2016 By Keith Jackson
    Barton is already banned for three weeks by the club and is now being investigated by the Gambling Commission for betting on Celtic’s loss to Barcelona”

    But it is only today ( 5 October 2016) that the Compliance Officer at the Scottish Football Association -the body to whom betting organisations are obliged to report suspicious betting by professional footballers in Scotland- released a statement to the effect that Barton has been charged with a disciplinary offence.

    My question , simply, is: are the betting organisations permitted to feed information to the Press about their suspicions about a named player?

    If they are , do you think that accords with any ordinary notion of fairness?

    If they are not permitted to do so, does the Commission have powers to penalise them if they leak stories? If so, will action be taken against the betting organisation that leaked details in this case?

    If the Commission does not have such powers,don’t you think it should ?

    Yours with best wishes,

    John Clark


  55. Billy Boyce October 5, 2016 at 20:59
    Apparently Barcabhoy has tweeted published official extracts showing that Rangers Retail Ltd is now legally controlled by Ashley with over 75% of the issued shares owned by Sports Direct, even after the £5M loan was repaid.  It appears he achieved this by issuing new shares when the loan was in place.  Unfortunately I do not have access to BB’s Twitter account, but I’m sure that perhaps EJ may be able to explain the significance of the extracts to us. 
    ====================
    Rangers Retail Ltd submitted a Confirmation Statement to Companies House on 25 August, but dated 13 July, which showed that 100 new shares had been issued (taking the total to 200) which left SDI with 149 to Rangers 51. (74.5% to 25.5%)

    However in the RRL Annual Accounts issued on 15 August there was a note to the effect that:

    During the year it was identified that the issued share capital of the company was 200 shares, not the 100 shares stated in the 2014 and prior financial statements. 100 of these shares were allotted in error. The Directors of the company, having being alerted to this error, will  now take all necessary  steps  to cancel  these  shares.

    However, there has been nothing submitted to Companies House since then to confirm that the extra shares have indeed been cancelled. It may be that there is no legal requirement to issue an updated statement at this time.  We may just have to wait and see the next accounts or annual return for confirmation.


  56. Slow as always, but if mike held financial voting control with his 49 shares (counting as double Sevcos 51) why would he feel the need to issue another 100?


  57. Good question Smugas

    The only reason I can think of is that Ashley would then receive 75% of the profits from Rangers Retail instead of 50%.  Money is already very tight at Sevco, maybe he is trying to push them to the precipice a little quicker?


  58. Tam Bailey, Childrens Commissioner, on Radio Scotland talking about the complaints about Celtic/SFA using the  13 year-oldboy Dembele, with particular reference to the u/16 game.
    Have I missed any and all other references to clubs ‘contracting’ with kids? Is there a back-story on this?


  59. I believe anyone who holds or controls 75% of the shares in a limited company can then pass special resolutions.

    For example changing the articles of association, changing the name of the company, winding the company up.


  60. JOHN CLARKOCTOBER 6, 2016 at 07:56

    Not sure John, it appears Ladbrokes have issued an apology regarding offering betting odds for the young player ie future Celtic captain, Playing for Barca etc. I believe the word commodification was used and the Chidrens Commissioner complained. 


  61. JOHN CLARKOCTOBER 6, 2016 at 07:56 
    Tam Bailey, Childrens Commissioner, on Radio Scotland talking about the complaints about Celtic/SFA using the  13 year-oldboy Dembele, with particular reference to the u/16 game.Have I missed any and all other references to clubs ‘contracting’ with kids? Is there a back-story on this?
    _______________

    I don’t know what type of contract the youngster will be on at Celtic, I doubt it will be a professional one, and also doubt that under – 16 level players will be on professional contracts either, so possibly the only problem the Childrens Commissioner might have is in determining whether or not the ‘child’ is at physical, or maybe even emotional, risk. We’ve all been that 13 year old playing against ‘bigger boys’ in playgrounds, streets and parks and know that the bigger kids gave no quarter, even when all we were playing for was ‘first to 21’ ?,  While I suspect that any complaint to the commissioner might have held a smidgen of mischief making, the child’s welfare might be the issue as the agency will want to ensure he is not at risk playing against much bigger, more developed players determined not to let some kid spoil their career prospects.

    We will have to await the outcome of any investigation (if that’s what may follow) but I am sure Celtic will be taking every precaution to ensure the lad’s safety and the worst that may happen is that they are advised that maybe his progress should be a bit slower. 

    Bit sad, though, if this has been brought about because some multi million gambling business was making a book on a 13 year old’s future!

    Good luck to the lad, whatever the outcome of this enquiry, at 13 he’s a long way to go before he knows he has a future as a player, but did I read (or was it someone else) that he qualifies to play for Scotland? Treat him with cotton wool, Celtic, if he does ☺coz we sure need him!


  62. ChristyboyOctober 6, 2016 at 09:35
    joburgt1mOctober 6, 2016 at 09:46
    AllyjamboOctober 6, 2016 at 10:58
    ______
    Thank you, gentlemen all, for your posts. This blog sure is a source of material and intelligent comment.
             ——–
    Coming back to matters related to the’saga’, I was in Court 10 in Parliament House this morning at 9.00 in the matter of HMA v CW ( disclosure/restraint order).
    Short hearing,finished at about 9.40. Kicked forward for 4  weeks for further submissions , and to be continued on 17 November.
    Reporting restrictions continue to be in force.


  63. AllyjamboOctober 6, 2016 at 10:58
    “..even when all we were playing for was ‘first to 21’.”
    ________
    We had invented catenaccio long afore the Italians: ‘half-time at 6, time-up at 13’  games lasted forever! If we had been playing to 21 , the street lights would have been on long afore either team could have scored 21. Unless Big D was playing, or maybe Georgie T’s big brother fancied a game!19


  64. JOHN CLARKOCTOBER 6, 2016 at 11:38 
    AllyjamboOctober 6, 2016 at 10:58“..even when all we were playing for was ‘first to 21’.”________We had invented catenaccio long afore the Italians: ‘half-time at 6, time-up at 13’  games lasted forever! If we had been playing to 21 , the street lights would have been on long afore either team could have scored 21. Unless Big D was playing, or maybe Georgie T’s big brother fancied a game!
    _____________

    Made of sterner stuff where I grew up, John, games lasted from dinner to tea, with cries of ‘aw ma, just two more to go, I’ll be in for tea in five minutes!’ There was always someone in our games could count to 21, too, then, one day, someone got a watch for Xmas…


  65. ALLYJAMBO
    if it went on too long someone shouted next goals the winner


  66. How lucky were we that grew up without computers? None of this ‘virtual’ stuff, we had the real thing, even if we had no strips, goalposts, or refs 21 but we had a ball, and as long as we had a bit of grass, or yard, or street we could kick it on, or a wall to kick it against if on our own, we needed nothing else. I bet Regan and Doncaster, and so many others who have let Scottish football down, never, ever, did the same!


  67. TONYOCTOBER 6, 2016 at 12:02 
    ALLYJAMBOif it went on too long someone shouted next goals the winner
    ________

    Usually when the ball owner’s mum was shouting him in for tea 15


  68.    We also never had lines or a crossbar, but knew instinctively when it was “Oot”, by, or “Ower”. The game was played with a straight bat then. 
        What did we know as weans, that some folk forgot as adults?….Simple…Cheat and you can eff off !
        It’s still our game lads and lassies…..Don’t let them forget it.


  69. Sorry to rain on your parade, CO, but unless you were blessed with a remarkably honourable peer group, I think your memory may be playing tricks on you.

    My own sepia-toned memories of those almost endless games of street football tell me that the usual arbiter of what was a foul or goal, or over the metaphorical bar or post, was usually (in this order) the best fighter or the best player.  Sometimes, however, this simple convention could be complicated by the best player or fighter being outnumbered by an appellant with several brothers in attendance.

    A bit like the SFA, in fact.

    But we were happy
    22


  70. You know, I can scarcely believe that I can have lived so long and yet be as feckin pig-ignorant as I keep finding myself to be!
    I saw a wee reference to the International Football Association Board, and looked it up. I don’t think I had known that it was originally   made up of two members from each of the four ‘home’ associations -FA, SFA Welsh FA and NI FA- and , later when FIFA came into existence, it applied for and became a member of IFAB.
    It is the IFAB that makes and changes the Laws of the Game.
    I then had a wee look at the SFA webpage, and on the ‘Referees’ page, what do I see but
    “Click through the FIFA Laws of the Game here:”
    And ,I thought, that must be wrong: surely it should be the IFAB “Laws of the Game”, not FIFA’s.
    And I further thought, even in a wee matter like that the SFA cannae get things right!19

Comments are closed.